Jeff Hoard wonders why Americans are suspicious of Socialized Medicine. This article for the Heritage Foundation by Kevin Fleming may help him understand. (The Executive Summary of Fleming's heavily footnoted piece is here). Based in part on an analysis of the British and Canadian experiences, Fleming describes the ten things one can expect from a single-payer health system.
The first is reduced quality of care. For example, only three of 29 countries studied by the OECD had fewer practicing physicians than Britain. And in a study of cancer survival rates in 17 countries, Britain ranked near the bottom in lung cancer, colon cancer, and breast cancer survival. Britain has fewer medical oncologists than any country in Western Europe.
The second is periodic funding crises. Providing "free" medical care increases demand for it. When the government responds by restricting spending, as it has in Britain, patient demand far outstrips health care supply. As Fleming shows, this has been the pattern under Britain's single-payer system. Indeed, Britain has underinvested in health care during the past 30 years compared to the European average.
The third is politically driven inequalities. As Fleming documents, Canada has a three-tiered system. The wealthy jump queues by going to private clinics or to the U.S. for rapid treatment. The second tier consists of the well-informed and the aggressive, who push their way to the front of the line. This leaves behind the elderly, the poor, and the disenfranchised. Similarly, a 2002 investigation showed that in Britain more than 10,000 private-pay patients were given preference over National Health Service patients in Britain's best hospitals.
The fourth is labor strikes. Strikes are common in state-operated enterprises. The health care industry has proven to be no exception. CBC News reports that Canadians have "come to expect [strikes] as part of the negotiating process between doctors and the government." In the past three years, Canada has experienced major health care related work stoppages in New Brunswick, British Columbia, and Ontario.
The fifth is personnel shortages. According to Fleming, Canada has a serious shortage of physicians such that 18 percent of Canadians have trouble finding a doctor. Canada has 2.1 physicians per 1,000 people, compared to an OECD average of 2.8.
The sixth is outdated facilities and medical equipment. In government-run industries, equipment purchasing and technology investments are driven by politics. Fleming shows the adverse consequences that have resulted from this reality in Britain and Canada. For example, according to the president of the Canadian Association of Radiologists, much of the country's diagnostic equipment "is so outdated it would not be used by radiologists in the U.S."
The seventh is waiting times. This is topic Michael Moore didn't want to discuss. Waiting times in Canada and Britain are notoriously long. In Canada, for example, the average wait time between general practitioner referral and specialty consultation is 17.7 weeks.
The eighth is signifcant variations in patient care based on region and economic status. This, of course, is a major problem with health care in the U.S. But Fleming shows that it exists to a substantial degree under single-payer systems, as well.
The ninth is financial waste. In 2001, Britian reportedly lost 20 percent of its total spending on its national health care system due to "waste, fraud, and inefficiency." Britain now has more administrators than consultants in the system.
The tenth is loss of personal liberty. Personal freedom in the health care context means that patients can choose their treatments and which doctors will provide them. Under Socialized Medicine, a government official makes these choices. Pressure also arises for government officials to impose behavioral decisions on individuals in order to keep health care costs down. Americans tend to be quite suspicious of giving the state this kind of power, particularly in the life and death context of health care.
In sum, as the U.S. grapples with the issue of health care reform, there are very good reasons to eschew Socialized Medicine.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 15)
76. The Heritage Foundation?
Didn't one of the NAZI Coore's family scumbags start that un-American hyper-con propaganda machine?
Bobo at 11:45AM on Jun 25th 2007
77. Havar from Norway: Thank you for you comments and positive input regarding the socialized medical system in Norway.
I live in the U.S. and my daughter has been seeing a young man from Norway who is in the Norwegian Coast Guard. On his 2nd visit here, he became terribly ill and needed medical care. The timing was terrible, as his flight back to Norway was the very next day. We tried to decide where to take him, the hospital emergency room or an urgent care center or try to get an appointment with a family doctor. We opted for the urgent care center. BIG MISTAKE. We were there when the doors opened, and the 2nd person to sign in. After much rigamarole and two hours later, he finally saw a doctor. Of note here, is that this medical center would NOT accept his special "travellers insurance" that he carries, in addition to his socialized health care in Norway. They said they were independently owned and would NOT accept his insurance.
At any rate, they diagnosed him with a severe strep throat infection and we requested an injection of penicillin as it is faster acting. I questioned the doctor as to receiving pills along with the injection. The doctor said "it's one or the other", you don't get both.
His visit cost him about $170.00 out of his pocket, and he was sent on his way.
Upon his return to Norway, as he was still terribly sick, not just his throat, but his whole body aching, etc. he IMMEDIATELY got an appointment to see a doctor. The doctor told him, first of all, he should NEVER have been allowed to fly in that condition. Secondly, he was given a FULL 10-day supply of antibiotics in a MUCH HIGHER DOSAGE to erradicate the strep infection. Third, he was taken off work duty for another two weeks, so he could recover fully. His total cost was less than $30.
Needless to say, I was TERRIBLY EMBARRASSED of the quality of care he received here. I now know that I should have either taken him to a hospital or a private doctor, who has said he would have accepted the insurance he had.
Havar, your input was helpful. The writer of the article was only using the WORST examples of socialized medical systems, not the best. And countries like Norway obviously have one of the better medical systems.
The problem with the United States is that the government pays more lip service to "helping its citizens". In actuality, it is more concerned about profits for the insurance companies and drug companies and the fat cats.
Cheryl at 11:52AM on Jun 25th 2007
78. “We don’t care how sick your three year old son is. Maybe you should just let him die and decrease the surplus population. After all, we’re the Christian Party of Traditional America Values; we don’t treat anyone for FREE!!! What do y’all think we are COMMUNISTS? Curing the sick should be totally FOR PROFIT…it’s what Jesus would have wanted...AMEN!”
Bobo at 11:52AM on Jun 25th 2007
79. Why do Canadians come to the US for medical care? Because their socialized system doesn't work. They wait and wait for every kind of treatment. Often they die while waiting. The classic "triage" is in effect. Therefore, the politicians decide who is worthy of spending medical $$ on and who is not and just continue to suffer or die. I'm sure Hillary likes it but most of the Canadians do not.
hitman at 11:56AM on Jun 25th 2007
80. It was reported on the France2 news that two doctors from Spain went to Cuba, and reworked Castro's operation. Secondly, they brought drugs to offset his infection. So much for great socalized medical care. The doctors were shown on the news after they returned, but not one word shown on our national news.
Dan Brennan at 1:39PM on Jun 25th 2007
81. OUR FUCKING COUNTRY IS JUST ABOUT MONEY, MONEY AND MORE MONEY AND HOW THEY CAN SQUEEZE IT OUT OF ITS CITIZENS. WE SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY NATIONAL HEALTH CARE WHILE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED AND SOME OTHERS HAVE IT AND ACTUALLY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THEIR OWN CITIZENS. AS FOR ME, I AM A DISABLED VIETNAM VETERAN AND GET MY HEALTH CARE FOR FREE SO I REALLY CAN GIVE A RATS ASS
DAN PAULITSKA at 12:03PM on Jun 25th 2007
82. Hitman,
I don't know what country you live in but it sure ain't the United States.
I've yet to go to a hospital or emergency room where I didn't wait to see someone.
My wife cut her knuckle to the bone recently and it was a full six hours before her wound was finally sticthced up, and that was only because I lost it and began making a scene...essentially begging one of my esteemed doctors could please do his f&*king job.
And for that wonderful service we had the pleasure of paying these robber barons $1523.
Fess up hitman...you work for a pharmaceutical company don't you?
Come on...admit it.
Bobo at 12:04PM on Jun 25th 2007
83. BoBo...God will remember how you talk and you will too as you are burning in Hell!!!
Poncho at 12:04PM on Jun 25th 2007
84. Poncho,
I have no doubt God is listening and I also have no doubt he'll side with my point of view over yours and your conservatives pals any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Bobo at 12:11PM on Jun 25th 2007
85. I always have a good chuckle when I read these articles written by someone who has never lived with a social medical system.
Don't tell me what it lacks. I've lived under both systems and both systems have shortcomings.
Just know that the 'statistics' they give you are not telling you the whole story. Like any propaganda they are twiting existing numbers, misleading and suggesting that some of the practices are common -- when in fact they are very rare.
Monique at 12:36PM on Jun 25th 2007
86. The appaling state of health care in this country is essentially an attmpet by the filthy GOP and their owners to turn the middle class in this country into endentured servants for the 2% of Americasn who reaped George W. AWOL's multiple War-Time Tax Cuts!!! The gap between the haves (George W. AWOL's base) and have-nots has grown faster in the past 6 years than at any other time in US history. Make no mistake...this Bush regime is trying to turn America into a GOP Dictatorship...with the middle class serving the needs of the neo-cowards!
Bobo at 12:38PM on Jun 25th 2007
87. I don't understand why people would be against national healthcare. From the day profit was allowed for hospitals, our healthcare was seized by the greedy. We have paid through the nose for insurance on our jobs. Now even that is not enough. In Texas the stateworkers are simply being ripped off. A fully covered employee has to pay 20% of any procedures such as mammograms and MRI. If you do not have the money upfront at the emergency room private hospitals are turning you away and stating that it doesn't matter what pain your in , if you don't have the money that is your personal problem. For the entire city of Houston there is only one county hospital that takes uninsured patients. Why as a country are we allowing a third world healthcare system to exist. I don't care that the medical industrial complex will have to accept less of a profit. National healthcare will not break these multi-billion companies. If it does break them that is good also, we need to start over, because what we got ain't working. One of the reasons that the country's stature is falling is due to the poor health of it's citizens.
Cynthia Laverne at 12:25PM on Jun 25th 2007
88. I have never meet a Canadian that has travelled to the USA for treatment.
I have met Americans who chose to go to Canada for eye surgery.
I'm telling you.....be careful what you read...
Monique at 12:37PM on Jun 25th 2007
89. Any health care article published by Heritage or Cato, with research provided by the Pacific or Fraser Institutes will be assuredly pro-market, pro-CEO, and will put shareholder profit above the health of our people. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian group leading the effort to let private insurers invade the Canadian market, is so health conscious that it has a record of supporting the tobacco industry.
An editorial in the 6/24 Buffalo Evening News sums up the need for a taxpayer-funded health system in the US:
"Some things, the country has decided, are simply too important to be left solely to private markets. Those services tend to revolve around safety and health, so it would be odd, indeed, if fixing a broken system that is fundamental to the health of Americans didn’t include some significant public component.
Criticism of the government health systems in Canada and Britain is common and it rises from more than a speck of truth. Canadians [how many?]with the desire and money do sometimes travel to the United States for medical care. That’s a fact.
But all big systems contain flaws. That’s inevitable. Critics, who may harbor other agendas, are focusing too closely on them while missing the larger picture. Canadians spend less on health care and live longer. So do the British. All residents of both countries have health insurance and all are shielded from financial ruin brought on by treatment of catastrophic illness. Business, meanwhile, is relieved of a huge expense that would otherwise drain their profits. That’s the big picture."
Go see SiCKO.
Call your US representative and urge him/her to sign on as a co-sponsor of HR 676, the single payer bill now before Congress.
Join your local group advocating health care for all.
Harriette Seiler at 12:42PM on Jun 25th 2007
90. You want to expose the hypocrisy of these filthy neo-cons with regards to healthcare, let's champion legislation that would relieve an American from paying any state or federal taxes for their entire duration in the hospital and any subsequent convalescence. If we’re on our own when it comes to Health Care, we think the United States Government should be on its own raising their taxes while we are paying for that Health Care. Its only fair, and those neo-cons are all about what’s fair.
Bobo at 12:38PM on Jun 25th 2007